A fractured aristocratic family is caught up in a venomous court dispute over the estranged oldest son’s claims that his grandfather denied him 25 years of income from a 1,000-acre Hampshire estate.

Old Etonian, John Sheffield, 50, claims the family patriarch deprived him of his due until the day he died, although a 25 per cent stake in the family’s rolling land-holdings,had been gifted to him in 1983.

As a result, he lost out on rent, farm yields and income from shooting rights on the estate, in Laverstokeinthe heart of Hampshire’s tranquil Test Valley, London’s High Court has heard.

Laverstoke House in Hampshire on 1,000-acre estate at the centre of the row between the aristocratic Sheffield family

However, Eason Rajah QC, representing his father, Julian Sheffield, told the court that John has 'gradually cut himself off from his family' over the past 18 years, believing his parents were 'responsible for physical abuse he believes he suffered at the hands of one of his nannies'.

The estate was established by John’s grandfather - John Vincent Sheffield - in 1968 'in the fervent wish' that Julian and his heirs 'would continue to own and look after the estate for future generations', the court heard.

RELATED ARTICLES

Share this article

Share

Mr Sheffield, who died aged 95 in 2008, was the youngest son of the sixth baronet of Normanby, who 'rescued the family fortunes' after the Sheffields were threatened by crippling death duties following World War Two.

Julian, now 74, followed his father into bank notes manufacturing business, Portals, where he later became chairman, and is now facing his own son across a tense courtroom.

During an enormously costly 10-day trialMr Rajah insisted that Julian and his father had acted in good faith throughout and that John had always understood that his share in the family trust that holds the estate was given to him by his grandfather in 1983 'as part of succession and tax planning'.

'The (family) understood John and his grandfather had reached an understanding at the time of the gift that John would allow his grandfather to receive all the income from the estate while he was alive,' said the QC.

'They understood that his grandfather and his wife would continue to occupy their home at New Barn House, on the estate, and generally he would be treated during his lifetime as if he was still the owner'.

'John says nobody told him his rights,' said Mr Rajah, but the barrister argued that the astute economics graduate 'was party to the gift and knew and understood what he was signing'.

There was, in any case, 'no dispute' that the estate’s trustees are 'bound to account' to John in respect of his 25 percent share from May 2008 - the date of his grandfather’s death, said Mr Rajah.

Julian insisted in court that his son had been well aware of the true position, adding that he was in line to receive 'a huge benefit - because he would ultimately own 25 per cent of a valuable estate'.

Father and son sat in court just yards apart - separated by a document-strewn desk.

Two of John’s siblings - Simon Sheffield and Nicola Graham - also stepped into the witness box to back their father’s account.

Mrs Graham, 40, recounted a conversation with her grandfather, when she was aged 16, in which he 'told me he was passing on his interest in the estate to John but that he was to keep all the income until he died'.

'I remember thinking how lovely it was that John - who at the time was a lovely person and full of life and a great older brother - that the estate would be passed onto the next generation through him,' she told the court.

Mrs Graham, who described her grandfather as a 'wonderful man', said he had told her his plan because he 'wanted to share it with me'.

John had for years accepted the status quo without demur, claimed Mr Rajah, and his father had described him as 'everything we could have wished for in an eldest son'.

However, by the end of the 1990s, family relations were becomingly increasingly strained, the court heard, prompting group therapy sessions 'in an attempt to reconcile the family’ relationship with John'.

The family had also made 'strenuous efforts' to mediate the dispute before reaching court, but without success, said Mr Rajah.

The dispute has its origins in 2005 when John first challenged his father and grandfather about his entitlement to a quarter share of the estate’s income.

John’s QC, Christopher Pymont, said it was never spelt out in 1983 that his grandfather was retaining his right to income from the estate.

'The point of the trust is to effect a gift. There was no word about reserving for John’s grandfather a life interest in the income of that trust,' he said.

'Although they knew that the gift was made and, indeed, intended the gift to be made, they didn’t follow it through and give effect to the rights that the gift gave to John.'

The barrister said that, having gifted John his 25 percent share, but with his grandfather still needing income from the estate, the trustees were left having to 'square the circle'.